HSCI 705 Ethical 3
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
705
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
6
Uploaded by CountMusicViper49
Brandon Pentheny
HSCI 705
03/17/2024
Introduction
In all forms of research, including academic research, the ethical treatment of human
subjects is of utmost importance. This ethical reflection essay response examines the
ethical dilemma faced by Professor X in the aforementioned prompt. Professor X is a
researcher at a large R1 institution, tasked with completing a time-sensitive research
project with undergraduate students. The case scenario involves providing a large
amount of extra credit without proper disclosure to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
of where the study would be sourcing its research subjects from. Additionally, Professor
X did not disclose whether extra credit would be provided or an alternative extra credit
for those who opted out of the study. This ethical reflection essay will explore whether
the actions of Professor X warrant a violation of research ethics, the vulnerability of
students as research subjects, relevant federal guidelines for research subjects'
protection, and potential strategies to assess the ethical concerns presented. Finally, a
theological reflection will be discussed, touching on the potential consequences of
differing decisions based on theological convictions.
Ethical Analysis
Violation of IRB Regulations
Offering extra credit incentives without prior disclosure to the IRB raises potential
concerns regarding study transparency and the informed consent process. Incentivizing
participation can enhance recruitment to a study; however, failure to disclose those
incentives may compromise the voluntary aspect of participation. The Belmont Report
states that informed consent requires that participants are adequately and properly
informed about all aspects of the research, including any potential benefits or risks
(Sims, 2010). In the vignette presented, Professor X's omission of the incentivized extra
credit from the IRB process undermines the informed consent principle. In an attempt to
correct this lack of oversight, an amendment to the IRB protocol for this study is
imperative. The amendment would need to include details of the extra credit incentive
and the alternative extra credit for those students opting out. This would aid in providing
a process of full informed consent rather than partial informed consent.
Students as a Vulnerable Population
In the provided vignette, undergraduate students are considered a vulnerable
population due to limited decision-making capacity, hierarchy power structure differential
between faculty and students, and potential for coercion. According to the regulations of
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), vulnerable populations are
defined as those who may be at an increased risk of harm or exploitation (Gordon,
2020). This would be evident as undergraduate students are in a position to be
exploited. In research studies involving vulnerable populations, researchers have an
increased ethical responsibility to protect participants' autonomy. In the case of
Professor X, this would be paramount to not exploit the students based on the need to
complete a research project. Federal guidelines such as that of the Common Rule and
the Belmont Report mandate special consideration for informed consent and equitable
treatment (Gordon, 2020). This would be important for Professor X and his staff to
understand as students have specific vulnerabilities not common to regular studies. It is
of paramount importance to have these considerations going forward so there is not a
lack of ethical oversight.
Federal Guidelines for Protecting Research Subjects
This Vignette implicates several federal guidelines aimed at protecting research
subjects. The Common Rule, which applies to federally funded research, constitutes
IRB's review and approval of research protocols to ensure compliance with ethical
standards. The compliance requires informed consent and safeguards for vulnerable
populations. The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code emphasizes
the importance of informed consent and justice in research involving human participants
(Fisher, 2003). Professor X's actions breach the aforementioned guidelines by failing to
provide adequate protection and disclosure of information for participants.
Incentivizing Extra Credit and Alternatives
Although incentivizing participation with extra credit may enhance recruitment in any
given study, it raises ethical concerns regarding potential coercion and influence.
Participants potentially could be compelled to participate solely for academic benefits,
which would ultimately compromise the voluntary nature of their consent. In addressing
this, alternatives to extra credit should be offered to the students who choose not to
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
participate to fully ensure that participation is truly voluntary. A sample idea for
alternative incentives could potentially be gift cards or alternative assignments for those
individuals who choose not to participate. Those alternatives should be clearly outlined
in the IRB protocol and communicated to participants.
Amendments to the IRB
In an attempt to fully address the ethical concerns discussed, amendments to the IRB
process are necessary. The amendments should include explicit disclosure of the extra
credit incentives, safeguards for vulnerable populations, and procedures for obtaining
informed consent. Additionally, the protocol should outline alternative options for extra
credit to mitigate potential coercion and allow for true voluntary participation.
Communicating with Professor X
Communicating ethical implications with Professor X requires nuance sensitivity, and
professionalism. It is essential to approach a conversation highlighting collaboration
while emphasizing the necessity of ethical conduct within our research process where
the subject's rights and safety are thought of first. While communicating with Professor
X, a need for an amendment to the IRB protocol needs to be discussed. Additionally,
ideas for potential alternative options ensure that research is voluntary and falls by
federal regulations.
Theological Reflection
The theological dimensions of the ethical dilemma presented several theological
principles come to thought. The image of God underscores the inherent dignity of all
human beings. The biblical charge of truthfulness emphasizes the importance of
transparency and honesty in all research. Ephesians 6:6 emphasizes the ethical
imperative to act in a just manner (Lincoln, 1995). This principle reminds us to treat
participants with respect. In weighing the potential consequences of the different
decisions, theological convictions play a major role in guiding ethical conduct. From a
theological perspective offering extra credit without properly disclosing the information
to the IRB, undermines truthfulness and justice, which would exploit vulnerable
participants for academic gain. Transparent communication, informed consent, and
alternatives for incentivized participation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Professor X's ethical dilemma vignette highlights the importance of ethical
conduct in research and the protection of potential research subjects. Critically
reviewing the potential implications of providing extra credit as an incentive, proposing
amendments to the project IRB protocol, and communicating with key stakeholders and
researchers can aid in ensuring research work meets an ethical standard for all
involved. This process allows for understanding potential theological foundations that
underpin ethical decision-making.
References:
Fisher, C. B., & Fried, A. L. (2003). Internet-mediated psychological services and the
American Psychological Association ethics code. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,
Practice, Training, 40(1-2), 103.
Gordon B. G. (2020). Vulnerability in Research: Basic Ethical Concepts and General
Approach to Review. Ochsner journal, 20(1), 34–38.
https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.19.0079
Sims, J. M. (2010). A brief review of the Belmont report. Dimensions of critical care
nursing, 29(4), 173-174.
Lincoln, A. T. (1995). " Stand, Therefore...": Ephesians 6: 10-20 as Peroratio. Biblical
Interpretation, 3(1), 99-114.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help